Yes - I'm afraid the outlook is bleak. The sad thing is that the US is based on the notion of keeping religion out of government, but there is a huge push to reverse that position.

I'm thinking of starting a campaign to demand that, if the goverment gets into religion, we should re-establish the monarchy in the US while we are at it!

(I'm not serious of course, but it might be a good talking point to get people's attention - I might just put in the local paper, although I'm a bit concerned about people showing up outside my house with pitchforks and the like.)

Geezer, if you do it. Act serious and give it your best shot..That way you might just become the founder of a new kingdom, in America.

Perhaps part of the problem is that an Atheist would be more likely to vote for "the best qualified" candidate irregardless of religious affiliation, while a Christian may be more concerned with religious convictions. Although, I have troubles voting for any candidate from the Uber-Religious party.

I suppose the question is whether it is the younger generation that is not as religious, or is it that people become more religious as they age? Or, perhaps the atheist octogenarians kick the bucket sooner.

No chance if you were a black, lesbian atheist then. I guess if you are a politician you may have to actually lie. Not an issue that many politicians struggle with though. Whiting up would not be convincing though.

Religious belief vs age is interesting. Do you think people are becoming less religious or do you think o as people get nearer to death they are hedging their bets?

I'm finding these numbers hard to accept. History does not seem to back up this data. We have had, what, one Catholic President in 200 years. One Black President. A woman can't even get elected VP much less President.

But then I've always had this suspicion about surveys. Do people really answer what they believe, or do they answer what they think they should believe. Anonymity does not always seem to correlate with truthfulness.

I'm finding these numbers hard to accept. History does not seem to back up this data. We have had, what, one Catholic President in 200 years. One Black President. A woman can't even get elected VP much less President.

Oh, we'll have our American version of Margaret Thatcher... sometime.

I don't remember hearing anything bad about Geraldine Ferraro. I don't think she hurt the ticket, but rather the country wasn't ready for Walter Mondale to follow Jimmy Carter's presidency, nor to unseat Ronald Reagan.

There was a lot of mud-slinging in the last election, but there could have been a better selection of a female VP candidate for the Republican party.

It will be interesting to follow Hillary Clinton's future political career. She came very close to getting the Democratic presidential nomination, and would have had a good chance of beating Senator McCain. She had both pupularity, as well as baggage from Bill C. to contend with during the last election. She certainly seems to be in the news much more frequently than Joe Biden, but, I doubt she will run again for President in 2016. She'll be nearly 70 years old then.

Anyway, theory and practice may not be the same. In theory religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, and etc don't matter. In practice... diverging too much from "mainstream" will cause an election to be lost.

Graham said "I would not be too hard on people in general - there are lots of forces at work here and much is down to human nature."

Graham I would agree with you if not for one thing. The percentage of people who DO believe in pseudo "sciences". Everything from Alien visitations to astrology, psychic powers to seances. A significantly larger number of people believe in the fake sciences than the real sciences. Again, I have to believe there is a reason for that.

In one of Carl Sagan's books I recall a story he told. He was taking a taxi and was having a chat with the driver. The driver recognized Sagan and asked if he could have a talk with him about science. Sagan, of course, agreed. Without going into a long story, essentially this taxi driver talked about nothing but pseudo sciences. Sagan patiently explained the fallacies in each one and by the time he left the cab, the driver was rather crestfallen and frustrated.

Sagan pointed out that here was a guy who had an inquiring mind and wanted to learn. But all he had ever heard about was pseudo science. Sagan concluded that science had failed that man.

I will never forget that story as it seems to be a direct correlation to the lack of trust in science to this day.

Or maybe man fails Science?People tend to choose what they believe based on many standards.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.